Mobilizing Forest Resources Effectively: A Key to Reviving Participation in Community Forestry
Participation in Community Forests (CFs) has been steadily declining due to out-migration, reduced dependency on forests, and complicated legal procedures for obtaining forest products. As a result, many Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs) are struggling to even organize annual meetings and manage their forests, leading to a more passive approach to community forestry.
While a number of these groups have generated income through timber extraction, non-timber forest products (NTFPs), resin collection, and tourism activities, much of the accumulated revenue remains idle in bank accounts, year after year.
According to the Forest Act 2019, Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs) are required to allocate at least 25% of their annual income generated as per their operational plan towards forest development, conservation, and management activities. Of the remaining funds, at least 50% must be invested in poverty reduction, women’s empowerment, and enterprise development, in coordination with the relevant local government. The rest may be used for other priorities identified by the user group. Despite these guidelines, field observations and reports indicate widespread not alighning with these rules.
During an event in Bhimeshwor Municipality that brought together various community forest stakeholders primarily chairpersons and secretaries of CFUGs, an insightful moment emerged during the question-and-answer session. One community user remarked, “Over the years during my tenure, we’ve saved a significant amount of money, not even spending on tea during meetings.” In response, the speaker emphasized that such funds are meant to be utilized not merely saved and encouraged their strategic use. This exchange highlighted the prevailing uncertainty and hesitation among many CFUG leaders when it comes to appropriately utilizing available financial resources.
In many cases, CFUGs choose to spend money on highly visible development projects like road construction, irrigation support, or hiring school teachers without spending in any forest management activity. According to Jagannath Basnet, Chairperson of FECOFUN Dolakha, while such spending incomes are not entirely misguided, he believes that Community Forests have been placing greater emphasis on visible development activities rather than on forest management itself. A notable case from Chaubas Division in Kavrepalanchowk illustrates the gravity of the problem. Three CFUGs with significant income came under investigation by the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) for corruption and misuse of funds. The rising number of corruption-related cases in the whole forest and environment sectors is alarming, with 1,071 cases registered by the CIAA in fiscal year 2080/81, according to its progress report. Such a high number of cases may discourage the general public from engaging with key stakeholders in the sector.
There have been different type of cases of mismanagement in Community Forests. In some instances, low-interest loans were provided to user groups to generate interest income; while some CFs successfully recovered the funds, others failed to do so. In certain cases, individuals suspected of misappropriation fled to Kathmandu or even abroad, avoiding any accountability. Moreover, some individuals in key positions have misused community forest income. This recurring pattern of evasion enabled by strong social ties and elite capture has allowed such misuse to persist unchecked.
This shows that income from Community Forests has not being used to its full potential. Investing in forest management activities such as thinning, harvesting, cleaning, or hiring forest watchers to control fire might help in reversing the current trend of declining participation. These practices not only promote environmental conservation but also create local employment and restore a sense of ownership among community members.
Increasing legal awareness among members of community forest user committees could contribute to improved governance and more accountable forest management. If participation is to be revived and trust restored, it seems crucial to establish systems that simplify administrative processes while harvesting forest products, and build confidence among users. When community forests are managed effectively and resources are mobilized wisely, they can continue to serve as a successful example of community-led natural resource management in Nepal.
